63 replies to this topic

[Terry]

The lack of services for the mentally ill is so sad.  Reagan's idea of getting families to "take care of their own" may have seemed like a good idea, but most families are just not equipped to handle mental illness. 

I know a very respected doctor who, after years of trying to deal with his schizophrenic son -- and having called the police many times to deal with potentially violent situations -- finally came to the realization that he had to close the doors permanently on his son.  He simply could not risk the lives of his wife and other family members any longer.  Evidently there were very few services available for his son, and no way to coerce his son into accepting those services.  (I guess "being committed to a mental hospital" just doesn't happen anymore).

Committment for in-patient mental health treatment requires the patient to agree to that committment. Gone are the days when family could turn over an unwilling patient to a facility for treatment (this was a civil rights issue embraced by then-Governor Ronald Reagan that drastically reduced mental health beds in California). Nowadays, police and medical personnel can place a 5150 hold on individuals who appear to be a danger to themselves or others. This allows for a 72-hour hold in a psych facility to monitor the patient. However, anyone with mental health issues to the extent that they've been 5150'd knows how to answer the questions to get released at the end of the 72 hours. Seventy-two hours is not long enough for any psychotropic drugs/counseling to have an impact and allow the patient to get a sense of his/her problems to then agree to continued care. And because so many mental health issues are associated with or exacerbated by substance abuse, these people are more than anxious to get out and "self-medicate" in their own fashion.

There are resources out there for mental health care, however, they require a willing patient. You can lead a horse to water...........

[Steve Heard]

There are resources out there for mental health care, however, they require a willing patient.  You can lead a horse to water...........

If the mentally unbalanced are dillusional or otherwise unwilling, we have to let them out on the streets, free to hurt themselves, and possibly, others?

That just seems wrong. These people may not know right from wrong, how can we expect them to be a 'willing' patient?

[donto2000]

just like i said before, homeless is a complex issue and there are many contributing factors causing it....the left-leaning SF Chronicle did an excellent job in this special report on the homeless....

http://www.sfgate.com/homeless/

[Terry]

If the mentally unbalanced are dillusional or otherwise unwilling, we have to let them out on the streets, free to hurt themselves, and possibly, others?

That just seems wrong. These people may not know right from wrong, how can we expect them to be a 'willing' patient?

Here's a good but brief synopsis of California's mental health services history:

http://ist-socrates....sr/history.html

Steve - I agree that improvements should be made to our current system of mental health treatment delivery. But as Donto2000 says, it's very complex.

Further, I need to reiterate that there are mental health issues among the homeless, but they are two different topics. And certainly in Folsom, by my experience, mental health issues that endanger the public seem to be almost nonexistent among the homeless.

[valdossjoyce]

Gone are the days when family could turn over an unwilling patient to a facility for treatment (this was a civil rights issue embraced by then-Governor Ronald Reagan that drastically reduced mental health beds in California).

Reagan may have embraced it (and liked it because closing the institutions saved the state a lot of money) but the civil libertarians took the issue to the courts and that's where today's policies come from. Judicial interpretation of constitutional rights. I find it ironic, the liberals who are stereotyped as the kind, compassionate ones "free" the mentally challenged, thereby condemning many of them to a life of homelessness. They can't be forced to stay in a "home", forced to take their meds, etc. I find it very sad. In my mind, the measure of an ethical society is its ability to care for its most vulnerable citizens. I guess we still haven't figured out how to do that. I like to see churches and charities picking up the slack that government can't/won't.

[cybertrano]

well said donto. i heard this line of argument before that Reagan is the cause of homelessness. whether is it true or not, it's in the very early part of the 80s. That was 25 years ago, so our current problem with homelessness in Folsom or elsewhere in the country is not caused by Reagan. We as a nation must get over this blaming game in order to find solutions.

Homelessness is more than just mental issue, many many of the homeless are drug abusers, many also are from broken homes, many don't concern about their lives when they were younger and became homeless when they are older because they don't have any skills that can land them jobs. etc etc..... complex....

Reagan is no longer with us, so can we let him rest in peace and don't trample on his grave......and i sincerely doubt that he is responsible for the 60 homeless in Folsom....homeless is a very complex issue and need more indepth analysis and discussion but this thread is "homeless in Folsom" so can we create another thread something like "homeless: why? is it avoidable? and what can we do to have a homeless-free society??"....btw, what is your definition of "homeless" someone who can't afford a house/apt, do not want to live in a house, can't support and take care of himself and live by himself in a place??

[CataBird]

Donto2000 had a good idea a few posts ago.

I am going to put his idea into action--create a new topic called, "Mental Health: Socialized vs. Family Care."

Look for it.

[Steve Heard]

well said donto.  i heard this line of argument before that Reagan is the cause of homelessness.  whether is it true or not, it's in the very early part of the 80s.  That was 25 years ago, so our current problem with homelessness in Folsom or elsewhere in the country is not caused by Reagan.  We as a nation must get over this blaming game in order to find solutions. 

Paul

Things we do can have long lasting effects. The legacy of Reagan lives on, though his policies are only one of several factors contributing to homelessness.

I did have an eye opening experience today. I was in my office at Wales and East Bidwell. A guy comes in and asked for the owner of the building. He went on to say that he is homeless, living out of his truck. He is concerned because he believes that the vandalism caused by one of the younger homeless guys is bringing heat on the rest of them.

He explained that the homeless shelter makes everyone leave in the morning, and doesn't open again until 3pm. With nowhere to go, some of the people sit outside the laundromat to hang out and get some sun, when it's available. Apparently, a young drug addict was upset over something, and vandalized some of the ashtrays and garbage cans at the shopping center where my office and that laundromat are located.

Since that happened they've been told they can't be on the property.

He is concerned that now the police will be harrassing them more, and that they have no where to go. He said that he knows most of the homeless in Folsom, and most are people who are down on their luck, and some have burnt their bridges. Some have drug and alcohol problems, some are sober. At least one has been kicked out of the shelter, and a new guy has beat up a couple of the older guys.

He also said that once light rail comes in he believes some of the homeless will hang out at the stations to panhandle. It's just like locating a business, you want to be where there's a lot foot traffic. He says if you ask 10 people for spare change, a few will give you something, so hanging out there all day they can make some good money.

As a city grows, so do its problems. Folsom, apparently, is no different.

[bordercolliefan]

Yes, I too saw the group of homeless outside the Powerhouse shelter on Wales Drive around 10:30 a.m. this morning. Included in the bunch was a mom with 2 young sons -- this must be the family I was told is currently living at the shelter.

I surmised that the shelter closes in the morning and they are sent to hang out outside.

I still commend the Powerhouse folks for offering a much-needed shelter. But, I did wonder if there had been any neighborhood repercussions from having a concentrated group of homeless folks with no place to go turned out onto the street each morning.

I especially hate the thought of little kids hanging out on the streets. They should have available an enriching environment during the day -- with toys, paper, crayons, t.v., etc. etc. I suppose perhaps on weekdays they do -- I know Powerhouse also runs a low-income preschool.

[cybertrano]

Steve - I have a feeling that the older homeless folks tend to be harmless compare to the younger ones. For whatever the reasons.

I remembered an experience I had in the lightrail around 2000. An older (late 40s) homeless guy came to my defense when a younger druggie tried to cause problem for me.

Any way, I always have had little talk with my wife concerning homeless people. I have the tendency to handout money to homeless people. So, my wife would say don't do that because it's their own fault for being homeless. I would say - it doesn't matter what the causes were because the bottomline is that they are homeless and need help. ..... Honey, you can reason as much as you want to and he is still homeless......

[forumreader]

I would say - it doesn't matter what the causes were because the bottomline is that they are homeless and need help.    .....  Honey, you can reason as much as you want to and he is still homeless......

I like your attitude, Cyber!!

[Steve Heard]

I have the tendency to handout money to homeless people.  So, my wife would say don't do that because it's their own fault for being homeless.  I would say - it doesn't matter what the causes were because the bottomline is that they are homeless and need help.    .....  Honey, you can reason as much as you want to and he is still homeless......

Cyber

Although I am on rare occasions, guilty of giving money to beggars, I know that doing so only perpetuates the problem and encourages them and others to continue this lifestyle.

While living in the Bay Area, whenever we'd go into SF, my daughters would grab a few coins from our change jar, which they called, 'bum money'. I initially tried to discourage them, for which they labeled me, 'Bumhater'.

As the homeless guy said to me here in Folsom yesterday, 'If you ask 10 people for spare change, a few will give you something'.

My daughter knows a lot of the Citrus Heights punk kids. She told me that many of them pan-handle, or 'spange' instead of working. Unfortunately, one of the kids she knows, a kid from a nice home near the high school, would rather do that than get a job. He's well on his way to making a career out of being a bum.

Another one who grew up here in a nice home in ARC sent my daughter emails from around the country as he hithhiked and begged his way from town to town.

The reason for each homeless persons plight, I do believe, is important. If you only treat the problem and not the cause of the problem, you'll never cure it. Is it drug addiction? Depression? Adventure? (yes, some of the young ones think it's an adventure). Bad luck? Lack of education/resources?

If we don't find out, we'll find ourselves some day wondering, 'Where did all of these homeless people who sit in front of my favorite restaurant, ATM, supermarket and school come from?'


That guy I spoke to yesterday seemed to have all of his faculties, but telling me that he's lived in his truck for 2 years tells me that he's not just down on his luck, that there are other issues.

[forumreader]

Steve:

I agree with you 100% about giving cash to panhandlers. (While going to school at Berkeley and working in San Francisco, I had to contend with more than my fair share of street people.) At the same time, however, I agree with Cyber in that we cannot ignore the homeless.

A safer and wiser way to spend pocketchange (or more) on the homeless is to write a check to a reputable organization. The Powerhouse here in town was happy to accept my donation. Thus far, I am impressed that the shelter has strict rules for its guests. I hope they continue to operate responsibly.

[donto2000]

one of many factors contributing to homeless: costly illnesses??

health is like happiness...you don't know you have it until you don't have it....

Don



Medical expenses bankrupt even the insured
Mark Jewell
Associated Press
Published February 2, 2005

BOSTON -- Costly illnesses trigger about half of all personal bankruptcies, and most of those who go bankrupt because of medical problems have health insurance, according to findings from a Harvard University study to be released today.

Researchers from Harvard's law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage, but little financial security for less severe illnesses.

"Unless you're Bill Gates, you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, the study's lead author and an associate professor of medicine. "Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."

The study, to be published online today by the journal Health Affairs, distributed questionnaires to 1,771 bankruptcy filers in 2001 in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. That year, there were 1.46 million personal bankruptcies in the United States.

Illness and medical bills were cited as the cause, at least in part, for 46.2 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the study. Himmelstein said the figure rose to 54.5 percent when three other factors were counted as medical-related triggers for bankruptcies: births, deaths and gambling addiction.

The study estimates medical-caused bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans each year.

Most of those seeking court protection from creditors had health insurance, with more than three-quarters reporting they had coverage at the start of the illness that triggered bankruptcy. The study said 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy, with illness frequently leading to the loss of both a job and insurance.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage.

[luvmom]

Just as in any issue, there is rarely a catch-all that explains the condition. We are talking about people. We have so many variables. Physical health, mental health, education, support or lack of, criminal history, Chemical Dependncy, and past experiences, that form how we are at any one given time. I don't wish an uncomfortable life for anyone but I will refuse to contribute to addiction satisfaction for anyone. I can't protect folks from their own decisions but I can protect myself.

Yes, I judge the situation and decide who I will give a hand out to. I'm sure I have been had as well. I will always give food or buy food if asked. Cash? I gree with you. My donations can make a difference, or they can be drank up, snorted up, or smoked up.

We are a community and we get to decide what we want to tollerate. I don't want someone yelling and screaming at me and scaring my kids. If I am a business I don't want that either. I don't want a drunk, wandering the street. I'd rather not risk me or someone else, running them over.

I like when the rules are enforced in this community. I like when citizens do the enforcing. Ask the kids to stop skateboarding where it is posted, call the police on a drunk, ask stinky people to leave your buisness if they are causing you to loose paying customers. Report illegal vendors who take away business from the Lease paying ones. We can DO many things to make this community what we want.

If you have a soup kitchen, you will feed folks that cannot provide for themselves. Some will be short timers but you will have those that are not. This is the exact same problem with taking folks into your own home. It is hard to make them leave if they don't want to. Tennant/Landlord laws lean toward protecting the Tenants. So we protect our families from being stepped on, unsure who will take an unintended advantage of our hear felt offerings and who will not.

Steve:

I agree with you 100% about giving cash to panhandlers.  (While going to school at Berkeley and working in San Francisco, I had to contend with more than my fair share of street people.)  At the same time, however, I agree with Cyber in that we cannot ignore the homeless.

A safer and wiser way to spend pocketchange (or more) on the homeless is to write a check to a reputable organization.  The Powerhouse here in town was happy to accept my donation.  Thus far, I am impressed that the shelter has strict rules for its guests.  I hope they continue to operate responsibly.